DOODH SINGH Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT defendant by the instant appeal has called in question the impugned order dated 6th of February 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

(2.) THE learned trial Court while dismissing the application of the appellant for setting aside decree dated 2nd of April 2009, has observed in the impugned order that it is grossly belated and there is no plausible explanation for inordinate delay of two years. Besides this, on merits the learned Court below has found that the grounds set out in the application are not convincing and no sufficient cause is forthcoming due to which the appellant was prevented from his appearance before the Court.

(3.) A bare perusal of the testimonies of Amar Singh and Ghanshyam clearly reveal that Amar Singh, in his cross examination, has also admitted that he was not present when the process server was trying to deliver the summons to the appellant No. 1. Therefore, his testimony, as admitted in cross examination in chief, looses all its significance. Moreover, Ghanshyam claims in the cross examination that Rajendra Singh was present. Since this statement is contradictory to the report of the process server, even this witness cannot be relied upon. In this view of the matter, the testimonies of both these witnesses do not come to rescue of the respondent.